new global warming thread, may be slightly different from other threads.

My dad is a republican, he says global warming is part of an agenda, to pass laws to over-regulate businesses.

Personally, I just want this global warming to stop. I am the rational middle grounds. I briefly recall Trump punishing people for using clean energy, this is wrong and has to stop.

I don't care if it's an agenda. Just end this friggin hell.

My dad's argument is that global warming may be real, but it may not neccesarily be made by man, it may just be naturally part of the earth's cycles.

My question is this: If humanity suddenly stopped all pollution, would that actually fix global warming? Or is the damage permanent and no way to fix?

So my solution is this. I want a planet where its not too hot, not too cold. I hate winter and I hate summer. Make it happen. Dont just end global warming but...completely turn this planet into a utopia. What are your views on weather control, ie. human controlled weather? I know My Little Pony is a fictional show but in the show it is the ponies who control the weather, likewise I believe humans can, philosophically speaking, be responsible enough to handle the power of weather on their own, provided persons such as Trump, or corrupt aristocracies et al are not at the wheel.

If this thread is too similar to another I don't mind if you delete it, but delete it soon before there are too many replies.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Im inclined to doubt they could measure the carbon density from 400,000 years ago.

In any case, the question is not whether man is responsible, but that, the warming is here now, and how do we fix it, using some kind of controlled weather technology.

Our focus should be on, the oil cartels, and corrupt adminstrations, etc. Advisable is to give them some alternative fuel source that they can profit from, so that they do not begin putting the war on inventors of clean energy. this is provided of course that they are after the money, and not simply cultish mad men who want the sun to burn the world. There is a possibility, that they are simply cultish mad men, who want us all to die.

Im inclined to doubt they could measure the carbon density from 400,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

And your doubts become evidence in your mind, by the magic of incredulity.
You can check their methods, you know (there are three or four independent ones, all of which give similar, overlapping, and mutually supportive estimates). That's the thing about science - the methods and reasoning are published right alongside the findings.

In any case, the question is not whether man is responsible, but that, the warming is here now, and how do we fix it, using some kind of controlled weather technology

Click to expand...

You can't fix it without first preventing its exacerbation - which requires identifying the responsible agents, and stopping them from continuing to make things worse.
Nobody knows how to control the weather. Not gonna happen.

And your doubts become evidence in your mind, by the magic of incredulity.
You can check their methods, you know (there are three or four independent ones, all of which give similar, overlapping, and mutually supportive estimates). That's the thing about science - the methods and reasoning are published right alongside the findings.

You can't fix it without first preventing its exacerbation - which requires identifying the responsible agents, and stopping them from continuing to make things worse.
Nobody knows how to control the weather. Not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

I told u what the responsible agents are: cartels, oilmen, and the majority of politicians who support them, priests, and the sheeple of the "matrix" who have no clue.
in terms of the pyramid of power, it starts with cartels, oilmen, politicians, priests, sheeple, in that order.

Im almost sure certain individuals know how to control the weather but for obvious reasons wish to keep that information unknown.

Far as the 400,000 thing, I don't believe my doubts are evidence. I dont have evidence of anything, maybe it did, maybe it didnt.
In any case despite how mathematically sound you think your theories are, you are living in a too small of a timespan set to verify its prediction capabilities on such a massive scale. In essence you are making an "educated guess."

In any case despite how mathematically sound you think your theories are, you are living in a too small of a timespan set to verify its prediction capabilities on such a massive scale.

Click to expand...

The theories involved are not mathematical.

Also, the scale of prediction that matters here, regarding AGW, is maybe a couple of hundred years.
And the margin of error is very wide, without disturbing the basic nature of the predictions. In fact, the width of the error range is something you might want to check - because the possibilities it includes are kind of dramatic, and status quo is not one of them. One probably (at the one in a million level) cannot rapidly double the atmospheric CO2 concentration without rapidly and strongly affecting the climate, ocean chemistry, etc.

And FYI I doubt weather machines are real, maybe they are not real, because you know, I have never observed one for sure.

Both of these ideas are altogether irrelevant: if weather machines are not real then they should be made real. If the weather was global warming 400,000 years ago, so be it, we still need to end global warming for the simple fact it is uncomfortable. If the weather was not global warming 400,000 years ago, so be it, still need to end global warming now.

If the weather was global warming 400,000 years ago, so be it, we still need to end global warming for the simple fact it is uncomfortable. If the weather was not global warming 400,000 years ago, so be it, still need to end global warming now.

Click to expand...

AGW is unique - the closest parallel events of the past were large meteor strikes, perhaps some stages of enormous volcanism as happened two or three times over the past billions of years.
AGW cannot be "ended" by screwing around with the weather.

They have observed the composition of the atmosphere and some proxies of the ocean, and various effects of climate regimes on the ocean and the land.

Sounds great. Meanwhile, in your lifetime, things that are now possible need doing.

AGW is unique - the closest parallel events of the past were large meteor strikes, perhaps some stages of enormous volcanism as happened two or three times over the past billions of years.
AGW cannot be "ended" by screwing around with the weather.

Click to expand...

But can global warming simply be ended by stopping carbon emissions? Will the Ozone heal itself naturally?

Things that are now possible need doing? What exactly do you propose then?

But can global warming simply be ended by stopping carbon emissions? Will the Ozone heal itself naturally?

Click to expand...

No to the first question. If we stopped pouring carbon into the atmosphere right now (highly unlikely), what we've added since the 19th century isn't going anywhere, it's still warming the planet (the oceans and the atmosphere), so the melting will continue, storms will have more energy and so on.

The added carbon has an effect on climate that plays out over centuries, possibly thousands of years (google the geological Carbon Cycle).

There isn't any quick fix we know about, and it was always improbable that we would stop burning fossil fuels, because they're just too important to us. Besides, nowhere near enough of us believe (or want to believe) there's any kind of problem, now or 100 years from now.

No to the first question. If we stopped pouring carbon into the atmosphere right now (highly unlikely), what we've added since the 19th century isn't going anywhere, it's still warming the planet (the oceans and the atmosphere), so the melting will continue, storms will have more energy and so on.

The added carbon has an effect on climate that plays out over centuries, possibly thousands of years (google the geological Carbon Cycle).

There isn't any quick fix we know about, and it was always improbable that we would stop burning fossil fuels, because they're just too important to us. Besides, nowhere near enough of us believe (or want to believe) there's any kind of problem, now or 100 years from now.

Click to expand...

Even as a child I wanted to stop global warming. As an adult I thought it would be over by now.

I dont cry much but I am about to cry right now. This is humanities last and final desperate stand. I'm putting my foot down and we need to save the planet. Something must be done about this, we need a hero to end these carbon emissions and save the planet. This is a global emergency.

...is It possible for water to be made more dense so it does not evaporate? In this way there could be a lake feeding a waterfall that flows into a stream, that in turn feeds the lake. In this way it could be possible for the same droplet of water to simply recycle. Of course during its' stream journey, that would be the end of its' downwards travels.

...is It possible for water to be made more dense so it does not evaporate? In this way there could be a lake feeding a waterfall that flows into a stream, that in turn feeds the lake. In this way it could be possible for the same droplet of water to simply recycle. Of course during its' stream journey, that would be the end of its' downwards travels.

How many times did I type something only to delete it....1) too depressing...2) to provocative... 3) too angry... 4) too pessimistic...5) to paranoid....6) too confronting
6 times at least I deleted what I typed.
I really don't know what to say... except to agree it is indeed a global emergency.
1) Too depressing:

The "horse has bolted" and all we have left now to do is prepare for environmental collapse. My grandchildren will most likely never have children of their own. Trying to come up with an endgame strategy ...The last thing I would like to do is make others unhappy with what appears to be a reality facing us all. No doubt they will find out for themselves in due course.​

2) Too provocative:

Some think tanks estimate only 25% of the world population will see in 2050. Some of that 25% will be living in artificial environments, protected from an extremely hostile natural environment. That's over 6 billion horrible and painful climate change deaths based on today's figures.​

3) Too angry:

We F*cked up as race, as a scientific community/thinker, whose only claim to scientific fame is to destroy ourselves and our futures.​

4)Too Pessimistic:

All this can not be happening... surely?​

5) Too paranoid:

But it is... isn't it?
and​

6) Too confronting: To know that the near future advent of mass suicide will be referred to as mass euthanasia (political correctness)

​

Perhaps I need to turn off this PC and go out and enjoy what there is left to enjoy while there is still time to do so...

Personally, I just want this global warming to stop. I am the rational middle grounds.

Click to expand...

Though it is a nice idea, even if it was all agreed to stop immediately, the world simply wont stop producing pollution.
to be able to do that it would be turning off power to around 50% of the modern world and closing of around 60% of all companys.

soo... as you can imagine, the idea of stopping Vs control Vs limiting Vs political agendas/games/power & control facism is a complex false flag game of hide the suasage(pollution or cause of) in someone elses back yard.

i think roughly 60 to 70% of the USA electricity is powered by coal.
so imagine turning the power off to every second house hold in the usa.
(and shutting off electricity to 2 out of 3 businessess)